Father Brown and the Mystery of the Empty Tomb

Image result for Raymond Brown Raymond Brown (1928-1998)
I am talking about Father Raymond Brown (1928-1998), not the G.K. Chesterton mystery detective but the priest Bible Scholar who wrote Death of the Messiah,[1]The mystery about  Brown is how he could become the darling of those whose position he sought to destroy  and the hated enemy of those whose position he sought to defend? Brown was a devout Catholic he loved Christ he believed in God he sought to strengthen the scholarship of the church he  loved, but he has become hated of the evangelicals and conservative Catholics and hero and champion of the atheists. 

He suffered such a bizarre fate to succeed at the cost of being rejected by his brothers and being idolized by those whose theological position he abhorred. Yet I have seen this many times, When I first started  in internet apologetic  it was John Dominic Crossan who the atheists idolized and the Christians hated. I can't document it but I remember well arguing about it quite often. In fact my late Friend the late Scott Gross (aka "Urbild") who was a seminary student at Clarinet got into a huge argument with atheists  on CARM about it. They wanted   so fervently to believe he was one of them, but Scot kept pointing out Crossan has his own faith eventually they dropped him like a hot rock. The same will happen with Brown, because he was not trying to disprove the bible. His real purpose was to strengthen belief by finding the real historical basis for the faith, He did not believe that all Christian belief must be justified historically.


Brown was willing to accept major doctrines like the deity of Christ based upon the word of the Church,or Church tradition. But he did not assume that because the church teaches it, the NT must say it unambiguously. He saw these as two separate questions. Thus his scholarship was about answering the second question.



This question [Does NT Call Jesus God ?] was settled for the Church at Nicaea, where it was clearly confessed that the Son was God and not a creature; he was "true God of true God." The recognition that such a belief is still the hallmark of the true Christian is found in the Amsterdam Confession of the World Council of Churches, which stated that the World Council is composed of "Churches which acknowledge Jesus Christ as God and Saviour." Yet, if we take for granted that Jesus was God as confessed at Nicaea, there still remains the question, to what extent and in what manner of understanding and statement this truth is contained in the New Testament.  [1]


The conclusion of that work:
"Thus, even though we have seen that there is a solid biblical precedent for calling Jesus God, we must be cautious to evaluate this usage in terms of the New Testament ambiance. Our firm adherence to the later theological and ontological developments in the meaning of the formula "Jesus is God" must not cause us to overvalue or undervalue the New Testament confession."[2]



Brown accepts the general historicity of the Gospels but as a  true liberal  leaves open the possibility that not all details are required to be  believed:

Regarding the historicity of the Gospel accounts, and the theological significance of this judgment (13-24), Brown contends that orthodox Christianity does not require one to believe that all of the details of the Scriptural narrative are historical, but that God at times communicates through parables, poetry, and "didactic historical fiction" (22, n. 28). Brown's critical criteria lead him to conclude, for instance, that the falling down of the crowd at Jesus' feet in Gethsemane when He says "I am He" (John 185-6) is not historical in nature, but rather "parable" (262).[3] 

I have two basic arguments on Brown's view of the Resurrection: I. Brown beveled in bodily Resurrection which eliminates the idea of a second  body, II. Brown's work provides a sufficient basis for belief that the tomb was guarded.

I. Brown beveled in bodily Resurrection which eliminates the idea of a second  body,

.....A. Brown Rejects No Tomb Theory
............(1) Honorary Burial Possible

Brown:
An innocent or nobel Jew might be crucified for something that did not come under the law of God, or indeed for keeping the divine law. We find this issue raised in Talbad Sanhedirin 47a-47b when Abey complians 'would you compare those slain by a [Gentile] govenrment to those slian by the Beth Din? the former, since their death is not in accordence with Jewish law obtain forgvieness...'Such a distinction had to have been made earlier or there could have been no tradition of an honorable burial for the Macabean martyrs. Thus we cannot discount the possibility of an honorable first burial for one crucified by the Romans....Yet would the tendency be to give Jesus an honorable or dishonorable burial? According to Mark/Mat the Sanhedirin found him worthy of death on the charge of blasphemy, and Josephus would have had the blasphemer stoned or hung...on the other hand Jesus was executed by the Romans not for blasphemy but on the charge of being the King of the Jews....[4]
............(2) Jesus Burial Certain

Brown:
That Jesus was buried is historically certain. That Jewish sensitivity would have wanted this done before the oncoming Sabbath (which may also have been a feast day) is also certain, and our records give us no reason to think that this sensitivity was not honored. That this burial was done by Joseph of Arimathea is very probable, since a Christian fictional creation of a Jewish Sanhedrist who does what is right is almost inexplicable, granted the hostility in early Christian writings toward the Jewish authorities responsible for the death of Jesus. Moreover, the fixed designation of such a character as "From Arimathea," a town very difficult to identify and reminiscent of no scriptural symbolism, makes a thesis of invention even more implausible҆ While probability is not certitude, there is nothing in the basic preGospel account of Jesus' burial by Joseph that could not plausibly be deemed historical." (R.E. Brown, DMV2, pg. 1240-41)[5]


..,.B. Brown Accepted Bodily Resurrection



Brown Believed in bodily resurrection and that Jesus was buried in a tomb (honorable) which means   there must have been an empty tomb. Ye tells us:
From a critical study of the biblical evidence I would judge that Christians can and indeed should continue to speak of a bodily resurrection. Our earliest ancestors in the faith proclaimed a bodily resurrection in the sense that they did not believe that Jesus’ body had corrupted in the tomb. However, and this is equally important, Jesus’ risen body was no longer a body as we know bodies, bound by the dimensions of space and time. It is best to follow Paul’s description [in 1 Corinthians 15] of risen bodies as spiritual, not natural or physical (psychos); he can even imply that these bodies are no longer flesh and blood (1 Corinthians 15:50). Small wonder he speaks of a mystery! In our fidelity to proclaiming the bodily resurrection of Jesus, we should never become so defensively governed by apologetics that we do not do justice to this element of transformation and mystery. Christian truth is best served when equal justice is done to the element of continuity implied in bodily resurrection and to the element of eschatological transformation. 

The understanding that the resurrection was bodily in the sense that Jesus’ body did not corrupt in the tomb has important theological implications. The resurrection of Jesus was remembered with such emphasis in the church because it explained what God had done for men.Through the resurrection men came to believe in God in a new way; man’s relationship to God was changed; a whole new vision of God and His intention for men was made possible; the whole flow of time and history was redirected. Nevertheless, a stress on the bodily resurrection keeps us from defining this resurrection solely in terms of what God has done for men. The resurrection was and remains, first of all, what God has done for Jesus. It was not an evolution in human consciousness, nor was it the disciples’ brilliant insight into the meaning of the crucifixion–it was the sovereign action of God glorifying Jesus of Nazareth. Only because God has done this for His Son are new possibilities opened for His many children who have come to believe in what He has done. [6]

This rules out the notion that the Resurrection body is not the same body as the one the risen adherent died in. In Hebrew theology one;s body is part of one. The Greeks saw body as a vehicle that one is piloting, but Hebrews believed Your body is part of You, thus Paul would never say  the Risen body of Jesus was not the body they put in  the ground. Nor would any Jew of the early Christian faith says this of any resurrection body. [7]

    
..kl
II. Brown's work provides a sufficient basis for belief that the tomb was guarded.

....A. Skeptic's Argument that Only Matthew Mentions Guards.

The assumption is that since Mark was written first and it does not mention the guards, than Matthew added the point about the guards for apologetical purses, to answer the argument of the Jews that the disciples stole the body.


....B. Matt is only Canonical Gospel to mention Guards, but Gospel of Peter also mentions them.

The Gospel of Peter was discovered in Egypt at Oxryranchus in the 19th century. It was probably written around 200 AD and contains some Gnostic elements, but is basically Orthodox. There are certain basic differences between Gospel of Peter (GPet) and the canonically, but mainly the two are in agreement.


....C. GPet follows OT for Passion Narrative and Res.


.......(1) Use of OT passages for Passion narrative.

Helmut Koester tells us:
Gospel of Peter (GPet) follows the OT as a means of describing the passion narrative, rather following Matthew. Jurgden Denker uses this observation to argue that GPet is independent is based upon an independent source. In addition to Denker, Koester, Borwn, and the very popular Charles Dominik Corssan also agree[8] 
It is upon this basis that Crossan constructs his "cross Gospel" which he dates in the middle of the first century, meaning, an independent source upon which all the canonical and GPet draw. But the independence of GPet from all of these sources is also guaranteed by it's failure to follow any one of them.


.....(2) GPet does not follow any of the canonical, but is in general agreement with them.


Brown, who built his early reputation on study of GPet, follows the sequence of narrative in GPet and compares it in very close reading with that of the canonical Gospels. He finds that GPet is not dependent upon the canonical, although it is closer in the order of events to Matt/Mark rather than to Luke and John.  Brown Again:

GPet follow the classical flow from trail through crucifixion to burial to tomb presumably with post resurrectional appearances to follow. The GPet sequence of individual episodes, however, is not the same as that of any canonical Gospel...When one looks at the overall sequence in the 23 items I listed in table 10, it would take very great imagination to picture the author of GPet studying Matthew carefully, deliberately shifting episodes around and copying in episodes form Luke and John to produce the present sequence.[9] 

As documented on the Jesus Puzzle II page (Doxa), and on Res part I. GPet is neither a copy of the canonical, nor are they a copy of GPet, but both use a common source in the Passion narrative which dates to AD 50 according to Crosson and Koester. Brown follows the flow of the narrative closely and presents a 23 point list in a huge table wich illustrates the point just made above. I cannot reproduce the enire table, but just to give a few examples: "In the Canonical Gospel's Passion Narrative we have an example of Matt. working conservatively and Luke working more freely with the Marcan outline and of each adding material: but neither produced an end product so radically diverse from Mark as GPet is from Matt."[10] And Again: "I shall contend that the author of Gospel of Peter drew not only on Matthew but on an independent form of the guard-at-the-sepulcher story, and in GPet 8:28-11:49 the basic story is still found consecutively (even if the details in the story are modified by later developments.)"[11] 


....D. Why would the other Gospels omit the Guards?


The question then arises, why did Mark, Luke and John no mention the guards? First, the assumption that because Mark was written first his information is older than Matthew's information, or is the same as Matt's is a false assumption. Matt. uses another source in creation small sayings that is neither form Mark nor used by Luke. This source is called M. So M could be older material than that found in Mark, so just because Matthew was written latter than Mark, it does not necessarily follow that his information is not older. M could contain a different tradition which Mark and Luke and John just chose not to use.


So why would they not mention the guards? Probably because the Jews had stopped making the argument because it didn't fly; the movement had grown and survived anyway. But the Matthew community, or Matthew School as some scholars have it, may have been confronted with a resurgence of that Jewish argument, or it may just be as simple as wanting to include all of the facts.



E. Brown did not accept historicity o the guards


First he says He applauds William Lane Craig's attempts to defend the resurrection: "W.L. Craig has written very perceptively on the resurrection of Jesus and has deflated some of the presuppositions  that underlie facilitate repeated arguments against it's reality." But then he lets me down: "in his attempt (unsuccessful in my judgement) to defend the historicity of the guard story...." He calls the guard story worthless legend."[12] I have never insisted that guards are proven,m but 
brown himself set;s up the basis for belief that the guards were historical. He's only contradicting his own findings in speaking of a second source that pre dates Matt and is not derived from the synoptic, That means there are two sources that document the guards. It also leaves  explained this quote by Brown allegedly from DOM that seems to imply he believed the guards were historical: "Raymond Brown (NT professor at New York): “[The authorities] would have taken the elementary caution to have the sepulcher checked to see that the body was still there before they sealed it on Saturday. That would have been part of their securing it as they 'know how' (27:65). …they were scarcely so naive as to guard an empty tomb. [Death of the Messiah (Doubleday, 1994), 1309.] [13]

Both sources are biased apologetic, the former is more scholarly of the two but I don't trust it;  both are apologetic. see FN. I trust the latter less. I think that last bit in bold is their emendation. Brown did make the argument that the Romans would have checked the tomb before they sealed it. But that doesn't mean he thought they guarded it.







Sources

[1] Raymond Brown,SS. "Does The New Testate Call Jesus God?" Theological StudiesVolume: 26 issue: 4, Issue published: December 1, 1965, 545-573, 
PDF

[2] Ibid


[3]Tom Shepherd, Book Reviews, Seminary Studies, 34 (SPRING 1996) 103.



Shepherd is at Union College, Lincoln NE

[4]Raymond Brown,SS.  Death of the Messiah. Vol, 2.,  1210-1211. 


[5] Brown, DMV2, pg. 1240-41)





 Paulist Pr; 1st Paperback Edition edition. January 1, 1972,127-128
see also 

Matt Gunter, "Raymond Brown on the Bodily Resurrection of Jesus," Into the Expectation, blog (April 9. 2012)

http://intotheexpectation.blogspot.com/2012/04/raymond-brown-on-bodily-resurrection.html

Matt Gunter is Episcopal priest in the Diocese of Chicago. 


[7] DEH Whitely,The Theology of St. Paul. Blackwell Pub; 1986 originally Fortress Press / Basil Books, Philadelphia, 1964.



[8]Helmut Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development, London. Oxford, New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark; 2nd prt. edition, 1992,  218.

[9][Brown, Death of the Messiah,op cit, 1322]

[10] Ibid..1325
[11]-, Ibid 1287


[12]Michael J. Alter, The Resurrection: A Critical  Inquiry,Xlibris  , 2015

Alter cites Brown Death of  Messiah... 1994a2:1312n60.


the google book descrip-tion: 
"The Resurrection: A Critical Inquiry is a scholarly work that refutes Jesus's purported physical, bodily resurrection and those writings in support of it. This book is compelling, relevant and current for those readers seeking scholarly refutations of that resurrection."



[13] Brown quoted by Belief Map, no date given.
https://beliefmap.org/jesus-resurrected/tomb-empty/body-stolen
this source cites Death of the Messiah (Doubleday, 1994), 1309.






Comments

The Pixie said…
Joe: When I first started in internet apologetic it was John Dominic Crossan who the atheists idolized and the Christians hated.

That is because Crossan rejects the Empty Tomb, and most Christians - such as yourself - think that without the Empty Tomb, Christianity is destroyed.

Joe: The same will happen with Brown, because he was not trying to disprove the bible. His real purpose was to strengthen belief by finding the real historical basis for the faith, He did not believe that all Christian belief must be justified historically.

Right. He is definitely a Christian, he definitely believes in the resurrection (like Crossan). But he does not believe all that was written in the gospels was true, and the guards on the tomb is one such example.


Honourable Burial?

Joe: Brown Believed in bodily resurrection and that Jesus was buried in a tomb (honorable) which means there must have been an empty tomb.

That Brown believed Jesus was buried is certain. The question is, whether it was an honourable burial in a tomb or burial in a communal grave for criminals. The best you have is what you highlighted in red: "Thus we cannot discount the possibility of an honorable first burial for one crucified by the Romans". That certainly does not indicate Brown believes it actually was a honourable burial, or even that an honourable burial is the most likely scenario.

I will have to go back and re-read what Brown actually said.


Bodily Resurrection

You quote Brown:

Brown: However, and this is equally important, Jesus’ risen body was no longer a body as we know bodies....

Did you read that bit? I guess not. He goes on:

Brown: However, and this is equally important, Jesus’ risen body was no longer a body as we know bodies, bound by the dimensions of space and time. It is best to follow Paul’s description [in 1 Corinthians 15] of risen bodies as spiritual, not natural or physical (psychos); he can even imply that these bodies are no longer flesh and blood (1 Corinthians 15:50). Small wonder he speaks of a mystery! In our fidelity to proclaiming the bodily resurrection of Jesus, we should never become so defensively governed by apologetics that we do not do justice to this element of transformation and mystery. Christian truth is best served when equal justice is done to the element of continuity implied in bodily resurrection and to the element of eschatological transformation.

I am not sure what Brown's position is here, and I am not sure it is even apparent in the book I have.


Peter

GPet does not follow any of the canonical, but is in general agreement with them.

Brown's position is that the author of Peter was working from memory, and that it is based first and foremost on Matthew.


Guards

Joe: Brown did not accept historicity o the guards

At last we make progress! I actually photoed the for pages of his book, so people can see for themselves what Brown concluded.

one
two
three
four
Joe Hinman said…
The Pixie said...
Joe: When I first started in internet apologetic it was John Dominic Crossan who the atheists idolized and the Christians hated.

That is because Crossan rejects the Empty Tomb, and most Christians - such as yourself - think that without the Empty Tomb, Christianity is destroyed.

Is that what I think? show me wher Ive said that, Skepie? That's the kind of thing they were using him for but that does not make him an atheist, That just proves you are not an atheist you are a Christian hater.

Joe: The same will happen with Brown, because he was not trying to disprove the bible. His real purpose was to strengthen belief by finding the real historical basis for the faith, He did not believe that all Christian belief must be justified historically.

Right. He is definitely a Christian, he definitely believes in the resurrection (like Crossan). But he does not believe all that was written in the gospels was true, and the guards on the tomb is one such example.

But that's a minor point


Honourable Burial?

Joe: Brown Believed in bodily resurrection and that Jesus was buried in a tomb (honorable) which means there must have been an empty tomb.

That Brown believed Jesus was buried is certain. The question is, whether it was an honourable burial in a tomb or burial in a communal grave for criminals. The best you have is what you highlighted in red: "Thus we cannot discount the possibility of an honorable first burial for one crucified by the Romans". That certainly does not indicate Brown believes it actually was a honourable burial, or even that an honourable burial is the most likely scenario.

Bull shit, you are so selective you are are blind to the things you don't want to see,I have at least three quotes that put it strongly:

"(1)That Jesus was buried is historically certain. That Jewish sensitivity would have wanted this done before the oncoming Sabbath (which may also have been a feast day) is also certain, and our records give us no reason to think that this sensitivity was not honored. " --that rules out mass grave because there would be no hurry if they just threw him in a mass grave, also honorable rules out the mass grave that was not honorable,


(2)"That this burial was done by Joseph of Arimathea is very probable, since a Christian fictional creation of a Jewish Sanhedrist who does what is right is almost inexplicable, granted the hostility in early Christian writings toward the Jewish authorities responsible for the death of Jesus."

(3)"The understanding that the resurrection was bodily in the sense that Jesus’ body did not corrupt in the tomb has important theological implications." --He'a not going to rise bodily from a mass grave or no grave at all.


I will have to go back and re-read what Brown actually said.

I just told you


Joe Hinman said…
Bodily Resurrection

You quote Brown:

Brown: However, and this is equally important, Jesus’ risen body was no longer a body as we know bodies....

Did you read that bit? I guess not. He goes on:

what do you mean did I read it? you are Skepke. you didn't read the thing, If you had read it you would know quoted this and talked about it,

Brown: However, and this is equally important, Jesus’ risen body was no longer a body as we know bodies, bound by the dimensions of space and time. It is best to follow Paul’s description [in 1 Corinthians 15] of risen bodies as spiritual, not natural or physical (psychos); he can even imply that these bodies are no longer flesh and blood (1 Corinthians 15:50). Small wonder he speaks of a mystery! In our fidelity to proclaiming the bodily resurrection of Jesus, we should never become so defensively governed by apologetics that we do not do justice to this element of transformation and mystery. Christian truth is best served when equal justice is done to the element of continuity implied in bodily resurrection and to the element of eschatological transformation.

I am not sure what Brown's position is here, and I am not sure it is even apparent in the book I have.

It's obvious but you can;t face the unspeakable he is really making it more supernatural and we can't have that can we? It's unthinkable. At the very least his statement mandates a body, it mandates an empty tomb. The whole context of his statement is that the body was burred but did not stay burred,


Peter

GPet does not follow any of the canonical, but is in general agreement with them.

Brown's position is that the author of Peter was working from memory, and that it is based first and foremost on Matthew.

No it;s not it was raised as a possibility, but it;s irrelevant because he clearly that there was another tradition, "I shall contend that the author of Gospel of Peter drew not only on Matthew but on an independent form of the guard-at-the-sepulcher story, and in GPet 8:28-11:49 the basic story is still found consecutively (even if the details in the story are modified by later developments.)" come on have the guts to face what that means


Guards

Joe: Brown did not accept historicity o the guards

At last we make progress! I actually photoed the for pages of his book, so people can see for themselves what Brown concluded.

Makes his position contradictory
The Pixie said…
Joe: Is that what I think? show me wher Ive said that, Skepie?

It is based on how desperately you cling to the Empty Tomb. It is clear very important to your faith.

Joe: That's the kind of thing they were using him for but that does not make him an atheist,

Right.

Joe: Bull shit, you are so selective you are are blind to the things you don't want to see,I have at least three quotes that put it strongly:
"(1)That Jesus was buried is historically certain. That Jewish sensitivity would have wanted this done before the oncoming Sabbath (which may also have been a feast day) is also certain, and our records give us no reason to think that this sensitivity was not honored. " --that rules out mass grave because there would be no hurry if they just threw him in a mass grave, also honorable rules out the mass grave that was not honorable,


You are reading more into it than Brown actually wrote. He only says burial, not honorable burial. The hurry was to get the corpse off the cross.

Joe: (2)"That this burial was done by Joseph of Arimathea is very probable, since a Christian fictional creation of a Jewish Sanhedrist who does what is right is almost inexplicable, granted the hostility in early Christian writings toward the Jewish authorities responsible for the death of Jesus."

Again, this only says burial, not honorable burial.

Joe: (3)"The understanding that the resurrection was bodily in the sense that Jesus’ body did not corrupt in the tomb has important theological implications." --He'a not going to rise bodily from a mass grave or no grave at all.

So they certainly believed is was an honorable burial once they believed in a bodily resurrection. a couple of decades later then.

Joe: It's obvious but you can;t face the unspeakable he is really making it more supernatural and we can't have that can we? It's unthinkable. At the very least his statement mandates a body, it mandates an empty tomb. The whole context of his statement is that the body was burred but did not stay burred,

It does not mandate a body, because "Jesus’ risen body was no longer a body as we know bodies, bound by the dimensions of space and time".

Joe: No it;s not it was raised as a possibility, but it;s irrelevant because he clearly that there was another tradition, "I shall contend that the author of Gospel of Peter drew not only on Matthew but on an independent form of the guard-at-the-sepulcher story, and in GPet 8:28-11:49 the basic story is still found consecutively (even if the details in the story are modified by later developments.)" come on have the guts to face what that means

What it means is that the guard story developed independent of Matthew. But it was still invented.

Joe: Makes his position contradictory

Either that or you have misunderstood him. I know which I would go for...
Joe Hinman said…
Joe: Is that what I think? show me wher Ive said that, Skepie?

It is based on how desperately you cling to the Empty Tomb. It is clear very important to your faith.

you have said nothing to disprove bodily resurrection, since the sophistical facts support it and the theological implications are very important so since you can;t give me a valid reason to doubt it...

Joe: That's the kind of thing they were using him for but that does not make him an atheist,

Right.

Joe: Bull shit, you are so selective you are are blind to the things you don't want to see,I have at least three quotes that put it strongly:
"(1)That Jesus was buried is historically certain. That Jewish sensitivity would have wanted this done before the oncoming Sabbath (which may also have been a feast day) is also certain, and our records give us no reason to think that this sensitivity was not honored. " --that rules out mass grave because there would be no hurry if they just threw him in a mass grave, also honorable rules out the mass grave that was not honorable,

You are reading more into it than Brown actually wrote. He only says burial, not honorable burial. The hurry was to get the corpse off the cross.


see you are so full of shit you are not even aware of the quotations in front of your face,he makes a poimnt of saying Honorable, "Thus we cannot discount the possibility of an honorable first burial for one crucified by the Romans..."
did you see the word honorable? Talk of Jo of A's tomb is honorable of that he says extremely probable,


Joe: (2)"That this burial was done by Joseph of Arimathea is very probable, since a Christian fictional creation of a Jewish Sanhedrist who does what is right is almost inexplicable, granted the hostility in early Christian writings toward the Jewish authorities responsible for the death of Jesus."

Again, this only says burial, not honorable burial.

wrong, by definition being in his own tomb is honorable, that just means not in garbage dump or mass grave, burial in Joe of A's tomb was honorable by definition

Joe: (3)"The understanding that the resurrection was bodily in the sense that Jesus’ body did not corrupt in the tomb has important theological implications." --He'a not going to rise bodily from a mass grave or no grave at all.

So they certainly believed is was an honorable burial once they believed in a bodily resurrection. a couple of decades later then.


did you forget Borwn just told you it's extremely probable?

Joe Hinman said…
Joe: It's obvious but you can;t face the unspeakable he is really making it more supernatural and we can't have that can we? It's unthinkable. At the very least his statement mandates a body, it mandates an empty tomb. The whole context of his statement is that the body was burred but did not stay burred,

It does not mandate a body, because "Jesus’ risen body was no longer a body as we know bodies, bound by the dimensions of space and time".

It mandates that the body is gone from the tomb and that leaves it empty, it is a body that's Paul's whole point in saying there are different kinds of flesh,

Joe: No it;s not it was raised as a possibility, but it;s irrelevant because he clearly that there was another tradition, "I shall contend that the author of Gospel of Peter drew not only on Matthew but on an independent form of the guard-at-the-sepulcher story, and in GPet 8:28-11:49 the basic story is still found consecutively (even if the details in the story are modified by later developments.)" come on have the guts to face what that means

What it means is that the guard story developed independent of Matthew. But it was still invented.

yes from the begriming, so it is a corroboration not just a copy,

Joe: Makes his position contradictory

Either that or you have misunderstood him. I know which I would go for...

how would you know? you can't even read what;son the page, just a typical message board atheist. "a man only sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest," Pail Simon

12/17/2018 07:10:00 AM Delete
The Pixie said…
Joe: you have said nothing to disprove bodily resurrection, since the sophistical facts support it and the theological implications are very important so since you can;t give me a valid reason to doubt it...

And you have given nothing to prove it.

Joe: see you are so full of shit you are not even aware of the quotations in front of your face,he makes a poimnt of saying Honorable, "Thus we cannot discount the possibility of an honorable first burial for one crucified by the Romans..."
did you see the word honorable? Talk of Jo of A's tomb is honorable of that he says extremely probable,


I was going off your quote, which merely says an honourable burial cannot be discounted. It could still be highly unlikely.

Joe: wrong, by definition being in his own tomb is honorable, that just means not in garbage dump or mass grave, burial in Joe of A's tomb was honorable by definition

Again I was going off your quote, which has no mention of his own tomb.

Joe: did you forget Borwn just told you it's extremely probable?

Not in any of the quotes you offered.

Now that said, I have gone back to the book and it looks like Brown does think there was an honourable burial. But if you want to quote Brown on that, you need to find quotes that actually say that. Better than "we cannot discount the possibility".

Joe: It mandates that the body is gone from the tomb and that leaves it empty, it is a body that's Paul's whole point in saying there are different kinds of flesh,

You (and perhaps Brown too) are reading that into Paul because you want it to be true.

Yes it is a body, but that does not make it the original body. What Paul saw on the Road to Damascus wasa not Jesus in his original body. And that has to be what Paul based his belief on.

Joe: yes from the begriming, so it is a corroboration not just a copy,

Wrong on both counts. Go read what Brown says. I gave links to photos of the pages so you would have no excuse.

Brown's position is a single story, invented between Mark and Matthew, which is the source of the account in Matthew. The story develops outside of Matthew, and this more developed story is used in Peter.

Joe: how would you know? you can't even read what;son the page, just a typical message board atheist. "a man only sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest," Pail Simon

I would know because I have access to the book and can check what it actually says.
Joe Hinman said…

Blogger The Pixie said...
Joe: you have said nothing to disprove bodily resurrection, since the sophistical facts support it and the theological implications are very important so since you can;t give me a valid reason to doubt it...

And you have given nothing to prove it.

Proof is not the issue, it;s a justification argument

Joe: see you are so full of shit you are not even aware of the quotations in front of your face,he makes a poimnt of saying Honorable, "Thus we cannot discount the possibility of an honorable first burial for one crucified by the Romans..."
did you see the word honorable? Talk of Jo of A's tomb is honorable of that he says extremely probable,

I was going off your quote, which merely says an honourable burial cannot be discounted. It could still be highly unlikely.

I quoted three more quotes where he says it;s a high probability' so he's only a brilliant scholar when he says stuff you like?

Joe: wrong, by definition being in his own tomb is honorable, that just means not in garbage dump or mass grave, burial in Joe of A's tomb was honorable by definition

Again I was going off your quote, which has no mention of his own tomb.

YES IT DOES! the total context of Brown's whole discussion is the high probability he was put in Joe of As tomb,

Joe: did you forget Brown just told you it's extremely probable?

Not in any of the quotes you offered.

bull shit, learn to read man, you just turnoff your eyes just turn off when it quotes the disproof of your error. o k here it is again read it this time, ready: Here:

"That this burial was done by Joseph of Arimathea is very probable, since a Christian fictional creation of a Jewish Sanhedrist who does what is right is almost inexplicable, granted the hostility in early Christian writings toward the Jewish authorities responsible for the death of Jesus."



Joe Hinman said…
Now that said, I have gone back to the book and it looks like Brown does think there was an honourable burial. But if you want to quote Brown on that, you need to find quotes that actually say that. Better than "we cannot discount the possibility".

read my posts above again (for the first time) I quoted three such quotes,you read you see I;m right but you can;t admit i know it because I read it and quoted it,

Joe: It mandates that the body is gone from the tomb and that leaves it empty, it is a body that's Paul's whole point in saying there are different kinds of flesh,

You (and perhaps Brown too) are reading that into Paul because you want it to be true.

Because I want the laws of spacial relationships to be true on a consistent basis,you explain how the body could rise and the tomb not be empty?

Yes it is a body, but that does not make it the original body. What Paul saw on the Road to Damascus wasa not Jesus in his original body. And that has to be what Paul based his belief on.

yes it does because that was the Jewish world view. they were not like the Greeks they did not accept the body is just a tent or a ship it is part of us, so they would not say that no passage does,Paul says it goes in the ground it comes out of the ground. what;s the point of that if it;s discorded?

Joe: yes from the begriming, so it is a corroboration not just a copy,

Wrong on both counts. Go read what Brown says. I gave links to photos of the pages so you would have no excuse.

you are tally misinterpreting him.if he did say he;s stupid because no other scholar says that,it is just well known the Hebrew world view would not have that,no way they they would not, Like the British being counterpoints and friendly,


Brown's position is a single story, invented between Mark and Matthew, which is the source of the account in Matthew. The story develops outside of Matthew, and this more developed story is used in Peter.

Matt uses Q an M which mark did not use those sources are older than Mark,they all used PMPN

Joe: how would you know? you can't even read what;son the page, just a typical message board atheist. "a man only sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest," Pail Simon

I would know because I have access to the book and can check what it actually says.

you are not reading it your are reading into it

12/18/2018 12:12:00 AM Delete
Anonymous said…
Joe: Proof is not the issue, it;s a justification argument

Right. Your opponents have to prove or disprove, you just have to justify an argument. Heaven forbid the playing field should be level!

Joe: I quoted three more quotes where he says it;s a high probability'

Not that I can see. Where are they?

Joe: so he's only a brilliant scholar when he says stuff you like?

He is a "hostile witness". If even a Christian scholar concedes the guards were made up, that is good evidence they were made up.

Joe: YES IT DOES! the total context of Brown's whole discussion is the high probability he was put in Joe of As tomb,

I get the impression he believes that (and he is Christian so we would expect him to be predisposed to that). However, I see nothing in YOUR QUOTES to support that.

Joe: bull shit, learn to read man, you just turnoff your eyes just turn off when it quotes the disproof of your error. o k here it is again read it this time, ready: Here:

"That this burial was done by Joseph of Arimathea is very probable, since a Christian fictional creation of a Jewish Sanhedrist who does what is right is almost inexplicable, granted the hostility in early Christian writings toward the Jewish authorities responsible for the death of Jesus."


You are conflating burial with honourable burial. I agree it is likely Joseph of Arimathea buried (or had buried) the body. I agree with everything Brown said in the text you quoted.

However, I think it far more likely Jesus was buried in a communal tomb by Joseph of Arimathea. I think a dishonourable burial is more probable. And your quote says nothing against that.

Pix
Joe Hinman said…


Joe: Proof is not the issue, it;s a justification argument

Right. Your opponents have to prove or disprove, you just have to justify an argument. Heaven forbid the playing field should be level!

He who asserts an argument must prove that argument. But proving God exists or Jesus is the son of God or some other major claim of a worldview is not at issue here in this discussion,

Joe: I quoted three more quotes where he says it;s a high probability'

Not that I can see. Where are they?

If I show then to you again will you pay attention this time?


(1)That Jesus was buried is historically certain. That Jewish sensitivity would have wanted this done before the oncoming Sabbath (which may also have been a feast day) is also certain, and our records give us no reason to think that this sensitivity was not honored. " --that rules out mass grave because there would be no hurry if they just threw him in a mass grave, also honorable rules out the mass grave that was not honorable,


Joe: (2)""That this burial was done by Joseph of Arimathea is very probable, since a Christian fictional creation of a Jewish Sanhedrist who does what is right is almost inexplicable, granted the hostility in early Christian writings toward the Jewish authorities responsible for the death of Jesus."

Again, this only says burial, not honorable burial.

wrong, by definition being in his own tomb is honorable, that just means not in garbage dump or mass grave, burial in Joe of A's tomb was honorable by definition

Joe: (3)"The understanding that the resurrection was bodily in the sense that Jesus’ body did not corrupt in the tomb has important theological implications." --He'a not going to rise bodily from a mass grave or no grave at all.

So they certainly believed is was an honorable burial once they believed in a bodily resurrection. a couple of decades later then.





Joe Hinman said…


Joe: so he's only a brilliant scholar when he says stuff you like?

He is a "hostile witness". If even a Christian scholar concedes the guards were made up, that is good evidence they were made up.

He's not conceding actual knowledge he's just asserting an opinion.

Joe: YES IT DOES! the total context of Brown's whole discussion is the high probability he was put in Joe of As tomb,

I get the impression he believes that (and he is Christian so we would expect him to be predisposed to that). However, I see nothing in YOUR QUOTES to support that.

Let us draw or attentionto statment nno 2, thiswill be the third tie I;veshowen ittoyou,

"That this burial was done by Joseph of Arimathea is very probable, since a Christian fictional creation of a Jewish Sanhedrist who does what is right is almost inexplicable, granted the hostility in early Christian writings toward the Jewish authorities responsible for the death of Jesus."

NO AMATURE GET IT THROUGH YOUR UNEDUCATED HEAD Burial IN A PREPARED INDIVIDUAL TOMB IS WHAT THEY MEAN BY HONORABLE! ,THEY DONT MEAN A BRASS BAND!!!



Joe: bull shit, learn to read man, you just turnoff your eyes just turn off when it quotes the disproof of your error. o k here it is again read it this time, ready: Here:

"That this burial was done by Joseph of Arimathea is very probable, since a Christian fictional creation of a Jewish Sanhedrist who does what is right is almost inexplicable, granted the hostility in early Christian writings toward the Jewish authorities responsible for the death of Jesus."

You are conflating burial with honourable burial. I agree it is likely Joseph of Arimathea buried (or had buried) the body. I agree with everything Brown said in the text you quoted.

However, I think it far more likely Jesus was buried in a communal tomb by Joseph of Arimathea. I think a dishonourable burial is more probable. And your quote says nothing against that.

Pix


your childish obfuscation are badly done, You got that same probable quote shoved in your face about 6 times now every time you try to change the focus from what the quote says to some artificial standard you set up because you can't face the fact you are evidentially sunk,

12/18/2018 10:24:00 AM Delete
The Pixie said…
Joe: If I show then to you again will you pay attention this time?

I paid attention last time. That is how I spotted they do not do what you claim. In that first one, the bit you have put in bold, Brown never said! That is you, drawing your own conclusion. In what you quoted Brown does not say that it had to be an honourable burial. Further, your comment is based on the assumption of an honourable burial ("also honorable rules out the mass grave that was not honorable").

Joe: wrong, by definition being in his own tomb is honorable, that just means not in garbage dump or mass grave, burial in Joe of A's tomb was honorable by definition

But the quote does not say it was in his own tomb. Maybe Brown says that elsewhere, and given he is a Christian, he likely believes it was, but what you quoted does not say that.

Joe: He's not conceding actual knowledge he's just asserting an opinion.

When the opinion of a leading Christian expert is that the guards were made up, that is a very good indication that they are.

Joe: Let us draw or attentionto statment nno 2, thiswill be the third tie I;veshowen ittoyou,

"That this burial was done by Joseph of Arimathea is very probable, since a Christian fictional creation of a Jewish Sanhedrist who does what is right is almost inexplicable, granted the hostility in early Christian writings toward the Jewish authorities responsible for the death of Jesus."

NO AMATURE GET IT THROUGH YOUR UNEDUCATED HEAD Burial IN A PREPARED INDIVIDUAL TOMB IS WHAT THEY MEAN BY HONORABLE! ,THEY DONT MEAN A BRASS BAND!!!


The quote does not say that. It says Joseph of Arimathea buried the body, but it does not state it was in his tomb.

Joe: your childish obfuscation are badly done, You got that same probable quote shoved in your face about 6 times now every time you try to change the focus from what the quote says to some artificial standard you set up because you can't face the fact you are evidentially sunk,

Quote them as often as you like. It does not change the content.

In the first one, you are drawing a conclusion on the quote, based on the assumption of an honourable burial, and using that to claim the quote says something it does not.

In the second, the quote says Joseph of Arimathea buried the body. You have assumed that meant in his own tomb, but that is not what the quote says.
Joe Hinman said…
Joe: If I show then to you again will you pay attention this time?

I paid attention last time. That is how I spotted they do not do what you claim. In that first one, the bit you have put in bold, Brown never said! That is you, drawing your own conclusion.

Wrong, That was in the source I quoted. I just bolded it. I told you I actually said that it may be their emendation,so you are merely proving again that you did not read my stuff,


In what you quoted Brown does not say that it had to be an honourable burial. Further, your comment is based on the assumption of an honourable burial ("also honorable rules out the mass grave that was not honorable").

I read the book It's obvious that is the dichotomy he works in either mass gave as dishonorable or individual tomb as honorable. Well there i a bit more to it than that.It's pretty obvious, the things the women did made it honorable, the spices, the grave clothes, the mourning,I probably created a bit of a polarized view by reducing it to just individual tomb.

Joe: wrong, by definition being in his own tomb is honorable, that just means not in garbage dump or mass grave, burial in Joe of A's tomb was honorable by definition

But the quote does not say it was in his own tomb. Maybe Brown says that elsewhere, and given he is a Christian, he likely believes it was, but what you quoted does not say that.

so if Brown spells it out why don't you quote it? i think it;s obvious the women gave care to the individual who died honored him and prepared him and none of which would have been done over a mass grave.

Joe: He's not conceding actual knowledge he's just asserting an opinion.

When the opinion of a leading Christian expert is that the guards were made up, that is a very good indication that they are.


that's nonsense! That almost boarders on an affront to intellectual freedom,there are other experts who disagree with him.

Joe: Let us draw or attention to statement no 2, this will be the third time I;ve shown it to you,

you actually proved it was more like the sixth time

"That this burial was done by Joseph of Arimathea is very probable, since a Christian fictional creation of a Jewish Sanhedrist who does what is right is almost inexplicable, granted the hostility in early Christian writings toward the Jewish authorities responsible for the death of Jesus."

NO AMATURE GET IT THROUGH YOUR UNEDUCATED HEAD Burial IN A PREPARED INDIVIDUAL TOMB IS WHAT THEY MEAN BY HONORABLE! ,THEY DONT MEAN A BRASS BAND!!!

The quote does not say that. It says Joseph of Arimathea buried the body, but it does not state it was in his tomb.

O come on that's a bird argument,it doesn't have to say it,the point of his being in the story is because he offered a tomb,without that there's no reason to mention him. that;s his whole function. In fact Brown does spell out that that is what he did, So the whole point in context is just that,go read the book.

hey apologize for doing that, I felt cranny,

Joe Hinman said…
Joe: your childish obfuscation are badly done, You got that same probable quote shoved in your face about 6 times now every time you try to change the focus from what the quote says to some artificial standard you set up because you can't face the fact you are evidentially sunk,

Quote them as often as you like. It does not change the content.

In the first one, you are drawing a conclusion on the quote, based on the assumption of an honourable burial, and using that to claim the quote says something it does not.

what I said about above just now is universally understood

https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Topical.show/RTD/cgg/ID/8905/Honorable-Burial.htm

?Without specifically designating who has decreed that Christ would be buried with the wicked, we get the sense that Jesus was not only to die a terrible death but also to suffer the indignity of being buried in a common grave with common criminals. He would be denied even an honorable burial." [Isaiah 53:9 cited]

Mike Ford
Joseph of Arimathea

Not burred among the wicked another advantage to individual tomb

the Potemkin of this quote by Brown tells was burial in the Joe of A tomb was what he calls honorable,

"An innocent or nobel Jew might be crucified for something that did not come under the law of God, or indeed for keeping the divine law. We find this issue raised in Talbad Sanhedirin 47a-47b when Abey complians 'would you compare those slain by a [Gentile] govenrment to those slian by the Beth Din? the former, since their death is not in accordence with Jewish law obtain forgvieness...'Such a distinction had to have been made earlier or there could have been no tradition of an honorable burial for the Macabean martyrs. Thus we cannot discount the possibility of an honorable first burial for one crucified by the Romans....Yet would the tendency be to give Jesus an honorable or dishonorable burial? According to Mark/Mat the Sanhedirin found him worthy of death on the charge of blasphemy, and Josephus would have had the blasphemer stoned or hung...on the other hand Jesus was executed by the Romans not for blasphemy but on the charge of being the King of the Jews...."[Brown 1210-1211]

clearly the issue there is honorable and since he got the tomb it would be pointless if it wasn't honorable since that would profane the day,



In the second, the quote says Joseph of Arimathea buried the body. You have assumed that meant in his own tomb, but that is not what the quote says.

It doesn't have to be his person tomb it was not mass gave or a trash pile, not point to his providing a tomb if it is not honorable and avoid profaning the day because if he offered no tumb he;s going to wind up in a mass tomb, why go to the trouble to provide that



12/19/2018 03:48:00 AM
The Pixie said…
Joe: Wrong, That was in the source I quoted. I just bolded it. I told you I actually said that it may be their emendation,so you are merely proving again that you did not read my stuff,

We are discussing what Brown believes. What is salient is what Brown himself wrote, not what some other commentators later added. And what he wrote is the bit inside the double quotes in (1), leading directly into (2).

"That Jesus was buried is historically certain. That Jewish sensitivity would have wanted this done before the oncoming Sabbath (which may also have been a feast day) is also certain, and our records give us no reason to think that this sensitivity was not honored. That this burial was done by Joseph of Arimathea is very probable, since a Christian fictional creation of a Jewish Sanhedrist who does what is right is almost inexplicable, granted the hostility in early Christian writings toward the Jewish authorities responsible for the death of Jesus."

See here.

Joe: I read the book It's obvious that is the dichotomy he works in either mass gave as dishonorable or individual tomb as honorable. Well there i a bit more to it than that.It's pretty obvious, the things the women did made it honorable, the spices, the grave clothes, the mourning,I probably created a bit of a polarized view by reducing it to just individual tomb.

I think Brown does believe Jesus was buried in a tomb (he is a Christian, after all), but the quotes you present certainly do not say that.

Joe: so if Brown spells it out why don't you quote it? i think it;s obvious the women gave care to the individual who died honored him and prepared him and none of which would have been done over a mass grave.

I am not sure where he stands with regards to the women, but it seems likely he considers them historical too.

Joe: that's nonsense! That almost boarders on an affront to intellectual freedom,there are other experts who disagree with him.

Can you find a non-Christian expert who says the guards are historical?

Joe: O come on that's a bird argument,it doesn't have to say it,the point of his being in the story is because he offered a tomb,without that there's no reason to mention him. that;s his whole function. In fact Brown does spell out that that is what he did, So the whole point in context is just that,go read the book.

The point of it being in the story is that is what they thought happened. I am not saying Brown takes this view, but I would suggest Joseph of Arimathea was the member of the Sanhedrin whose job it was was to see crucified Jews got buried before nightfall, as per the requirements of their religion. This could have been a task he did several times a year, and he could have been well known for doing it. So the disciples assumed, quite reasonably, that when Jesus died, Joseph of Arimathea did the same for him.

And that is why it says Joseph of Arimathea did it.

That could have been part of the narrative right from the start. The tomb and the women get added a few years later, then the empty tomb, and so on.

Joe: hey apologize for doing that, I felt cranny,

No worse than normal!
The Pixie said…
Joe: what I said about above just now is universally understood

https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Topical.show/RTD/cgg/ID/8905/Honorable-Burial.htm

?Without specifically designating who has decreed that Christ would be buried with the wicked, we get the sense that Jesus was not only to die a terrible death but also to suffer the indignity of being buried in a common grave with common criminals. He would be denied even an honorable burial." [Isaiah 53:9 cited]

Mike Ford
Joseph of Arimathea


The issue is what Brown actually said. However, what you have presented fails in two others. Firstly it was written centuries before the event, so can hardly be considered a witness account. Secondly, it says Jesus would be DENIED an honourable burial, the exact opposite of what you are arguing for! Undoubtedly Isaiah 53:9 was seized upon by early Christians, but not so much once the hoonourable burial became a thing.

Joe: Not burred among the wicked another advantage to individual tomb

Sure that would be an advantage, but not reason to suppose it was so.

Joe: the Potemkin of this quote by Brown tells was burial in the Joe of A tomb was what he calls honorable,

"An innocent or nobel Jew might be crucified for something that did not come under the law of God, or indeed for keeping the divine law. We find this issue raised in Talbad Sanhedirin 47a-47b when Abey complians 'would you compare those slain by a [Gentile] govenrment to those slian by the Beth Din? the former, since their death is not in accordence with Jewish law obtain forgvieness...'Such a distinction had to have been made earlier or there could have been no tradition of an honorable burial for the Macabean martyrs. Thus we cannot discount the possibility of an honorable first burial for one crucified by the Romans....Yet would the tendency be to give Jesus an honorable or dishonorable burial? According to Mark/Mat the Sanhedirin found him worthy of death on the charge of blasphemy, and Josephus would have had the blasphemer stoned or hung...on the other hand Jesus was executed by the Romans not for blasphemy but on the charge of being the King of the Jews...."[Brown 1210-1211]

clearly the issue there is honorable and since he got the tomb it would be pointless if it wasn't honorable since that would profane the day,


Now we are getting to the issue! Yes, this is Brown discussing if the burial was honourable or not. He does say "we cannot discount the possibility", but that still allows for it to be one chance in a million. You read to continue reading to see where he goes.

With regards to his comments about the Maccabean martyrs, Jesus' case was different for two very important reasons, one of which he does allude to. The first is that Jesus had been condemned for blasphemy, while the Maccabees were considered martyrs to the Jewish authorities. The second, which he misses, is that the Maccabees were the rulers, and so could do whatever they wanted with the bodies. In Jesus' time, it was the Romans who ultimately could dictate what happened to the body. And they had good reason to want to avoid Jesus becoming a martyr.

Joe: It doesn't have to be his person tomb it was not mass gave or a trash pile, not point to his providing a tomb if it is not honorable and avoid profaning the day because if he offered no tumb he;s going to wind up in a mass tomb, why go to the trouble to provide that

They avoid profanity if the body is in the ground. A mass grave is just as good as a tomb for the purpose. Nothing in your second quote indicates one way or the other.
Joe Hinman said…
Joe: Wrong, That was in the source I quoted. I just bolded it. I told you I actually said that it may be their emendation,so you are merely proving again that you did not read my stuff,

We are discussing what Brown believes. What is salient is what Brown himself wrote, not what some other commentators later added. And what he wrote is the bit inside the double quotes in (1), leading directly into (2).

No that is not part of the three, The three quotes I gave in answer to your assertion that I had not documented Brown saying the probability is high he had privater tomb this is a totally different quote not of the those, Other commemorators can be as good or better than brown, stop acting like Brown is the last word he is not,

"That Jesus was buried is historically certain. That Jewish sensitivity would have wanted this done before the oncoming Sabbath (which may also have been a feast day) is also certain, and our records give us no reason to think that this sensitivity was not honored. That this burial was done by Joseph of Arimathea is very probable, since a Christian fictional creation of a Jewish Sanhedrist who does what is right is almost inexplicable, granted the hostility in early Christian writings toward the Jewish authorities responsible for the death of Jesus."
yes that is one of the three

See here.

Joe: I read the book It's obvious that is the dichotomy he works in either mass gave as dishonorable or individual tomb as honorable. Well there i a bit more to it than that.It's pretty obvious, the things the women did made it honorable, the spices, the grave clothes, the mourning,I probably created a bit of a polarized view by reducing it to just individual tomb.

I think Brown does believe Jesus was buried in a tomb (he is a Christian, after all), but the quotes you present certainly do not say that.


yes of course they do, the one we just said says it. It is talking about pitting him in a a proper tomb not a mass gave so they wont profane the coming holiday, there is no other reason for Joseph to be mentioned that;s all he does is provide the tomb,
"since a Christian fictional creation of a Jewish Sanhedrist who does what is right is almost inexplicable, granted the hostility in early Christian writings toward the Jewish authorities responsible for the death of Jesus." what the hell do you think that means? it means Jo got him a tomb it would not be a mass gave because he wouldn't have to go to any lengths to offer his own private tomb which would not be a mass agave anyway,





Joe: so if Brown spells it out why don't you quote it? i think it;s obvious the women gave care to the individual who died honored him and prepared him and none of which would have been done over a mass grave.

I am not sure where he stands with regards to the women, but it seems likely he considers them historical too.

Joe: that's nonsense! That almost boarders on an affront to intellectual freedom,there are other experts who disagree with him.

Can you find a non-Christian expert who says the guards are historical?

ridiculous cop out.
Joe Hinman said…
Now we are getting to the issue! Yes, this is Brown discussing if the burial was honourable or not. He does say "we cannot discount the possibility", but that still allows for it to be one chance in a million. You read to continue reading to see where he goes.

This o why I find your arguments to be merely disingenuous obfuscations, no one could think clearly about those three quotes and spout the rubbish you just did. You glacially origin the fact that he says it is extremely high probability that Joe of A was real and really gave him a tomb that means honorable burial. It has to why would Joe have a tomb for himself that was a mass grave? You on to the"possibility" and then blind yourself to "High probably" answer he gives,don't know anything about scholarly caution" He;s not going to say:I am totality right there is no doubt. But clearly he thouht so,,

With regards to his comments about the Maccabean martyrs, Jesus' case was different for two very important reasons, one of which he does allude to. The first is that Jesus had been condemned for blasphemy, while the Maccabees were considered martyrs to the Jewish authorities. The second, which he misses, is that the Maccabees were the rulers, and so could do whatever they wanted with the bodies. In Jesus' time, it was the Romans who ultimately could dictate what happened to the body. And they had good reason to want to avoid Jesus becoming a martyr.

No the do what they they wanted to thing is stupid and wrongheaded, if true Brown would have known it,they could not do what they wanted that;s why they had to rebel,hebrew king could not set aside the law. He is saying that sedition against Rome would not prevent an honorable burial and Jesus was not crucified by Poate for blasphemy,

Joe: It doesn't have to be his person tomb it was not mass gave or a trash pile, not point to his providing a tomb if it is not honorable and avoid profaning the day because if he offered no tumb he;s going to wind up in a mass tomb, why go to the trouble to provide that

They avoid profanity if the body is in the ground. A mass grave is just as good as a tomb for the purpose. Nothing in your second quote indicates one way or the other.


NONONON you did not read the book,go read it again,listen I know what I;m talkiing about because that prat of the book changed my whole way of thinking about the REs, you are absolutely wrong Ive already proven it, The fact is burial in a mass gave would be with sinners and thus would profane the Passover. It was agasomt the law to bury someone with sinners, Thus the pasover can;t be celebrated and that woudl screw the whole religion fora year,the whole faith.big hairy deal to be put in a mass gave,

12/20/2018 12:28:00 AM Delete
Anonymous said…
Joe: No that is not part of the three, The three quotes I gave in answer to your assertion that I had not documented Brown saying the probability is high he had privater tomb this is a totally different quote not of the those, Other commemorators can be as good or better than brown, stop acting like Brown is the last word he is not,

But this is a discussion first and foremost about what Brown believes. And Brown really is the last word on that.

Joe: yes that is one of the three

It is one and a half of the three. It is half of the first - the bit Brown actually said.

Joe: yes of course they do, the one we just said says it. It is talking about pitting him in a a proper tomb not a mass gave so they wont profane the coming holiday, there is no other reason for Joseph to be mentioned that;s all he does is provide the tomb,

It makes no distinction between a mass grace and a tomb. It only says buried. Do you not read what you quote?

Joe: "since a Christian fictional creation of a Jewish Sanhedrist who does what is right is almost inexplicable, granted the hostility in early Christian writings toward the Jewish authorities responsible for the death of Jesus." what the hell do you think that means? it means Jo got him a tomb it would not be a mass gave because he wouldn't have to go to any lengths to offer his own private tomb which would not be a mass agave anyway,

It means Joseph of Arimathea went to the trouble of burying Jesus. The "what is right" is ensuring the body was buried. No more than that. The lengths he had to go to are about getting permission from Pilate and getting the body off the cross.

You have decided in advance that you want the text to require an honourable burial (perhaps because you are mis-remembering from when you first read it), and so you stamp that assumption on it.

Joe: You glacially origin the fact that he says it is extremely high probability that Joe of A was real...

I agree with Brown that Joseph of Arimathea was probably real.

Joe: ... and really gave him a tomb that means honorable burial.

None of those three quotes say Joseph of Arimathea gave Jesus a tomb. They only say he got Jesus buried.

Pix
Anonymous said…
Joe: It has to why would Joe have a tomb for himself that was a mass grave?

Whether Joseph of Arimathea really had a tomb for himself is unclear and irrelevant. He would have put Jesus in the mass grave because:

(a) It would almost certainly have been closer and more convenient
(b) That is what the Romans would demand for the leader of a potential Jewish rebellion
(c) That is what Joseph of Arimathea would demand for a blasphemer.

Joe: You on to the"possibility" and then blind yourself to "High probably" answer he gives,don't know anything about scholarly caution" He;s not going to say:I am totality right there is no doubt. But clearly he thouht so,,

He does not say "high probability"! At least, not in the quotes you offer.

Read them, and see for yourself.

Joe: No the do what they they wanted to thing is stupid and wrongheaded, if true Brown would have known it,they could not do what they wanted that;s why they had to rebel,hebrew king could not set aside the law.

Thinking about, I maybe wrong there. Presumably the Jews were self-ruling later, given the martyrs were killed under the rule of gentiles.

Joe: He is saying that sedition against Rome would not prevent an honorable burial and Jesus was not crucified by Poate for blasphemy,

He is saying sedition against Rome would not prevent the Jews from giving an honorable burial. So far so good.

It almost certain would prevent the Romans allowing it.

Being found guilty of blasphemy would disallow an honourable burial.

Joe: The fact is burial in a mass gave would be with sinners and thus would profane the Passover. It was agasomt the law to bury someone with sinners, Thus the pasover can;t be celebrated and that woudl screw the whole religion fora year,the whole faith.big hairy deal to be put in a mass gave,


If that is so, then why have you not mentioned it before? Where is the quote to support that claim? My understanding is that the requirement was merely to get all corpses buried.

Further, Jesus was judged a sinner; the Sanhedrin - presumably including Joseph of Arimathea - found him guilty of blasphemy.

Pix
Joe Hinman said…

Anonymous Anonymous said...
Joe: No that is not part of the three, The three quotes I gave in answer to your assertion that I had not documented Brown saying the probability is high he had privater tomb this is a totally different quote not of the those, Other commemorators can be as good or better than brown, stop acting like Brown is the last word he is not,

But this is a discussion first and foremost about what Brown believes. And Brown really is the last word on that.

wrong on both counts, you vested Brown with this halo of rightness when he agrees with you and ignore when he doesn't but no one is the last word, especially when he is only bein lauded for his anti-Christianity value.

The basis Brown offered for the resurrection not just anything he thought.


Joe: yes that is one of the three

It is one and a half of the three. It is half of the first - the bit Brown actually said.

Brown said all of all three, you are obfuscating, the big I suspected he didn't say is of a totally different quot I already said it.

you have not supplied a means of chickening


Joe: yes of course they do, the one we just said says it. It is talking about putting him in a a proper tomb not a mass gave so they wont profane the coming holiday, there is no other reason for Joseph to be mentioned that's all he does is provide the tomb,

It makes no distinction between a mass grace and a tomb. It only says buried. Do you not read what you quote?


Yes it sure as hell does,again there is no reason for Joe of A to provide a mass gave. why would anyone keep their own ass gave? A mass grave would profane the day since would be burred with sinners, you are merely obfuscating, you are bedding needlessly picky with the quotes.

Joe: "since a Christian fictional creation of a Jewish Sanhedrist who does what is right is almost inexplicable, granted the hostility in early Christian writings toward the Jewish authorities responsible for the death of Jesus." what the hell do you think that means? it means Jo got him a tomb it would not be a mass gave because he wouldn't have to go to any lengths to offer his own private tomb which would not be a mass agave anyway,

Px:It means Joseph of Arimathea went to the trouble of burying Jesus. The "what is right" is ensuring the body was buried. No more than that. The lengths he had to go to are about getting permission from Pilate and getting the body off the cross.

No,that's wrong, Josephus says it's wrong in the passage were he obtained his friend from Crucifixion== mass burial was profaning, I've argued this before many many times, you could have avoided all of this if you had read y article I lined to have tomb will argue,

....

None of those three quotes say Joseph of Arimathea gave Jesus a tomb. They only say he got Jesus buried.

that statement, that line of unreasoning is not worthy of a man of your intellectual prowess. I've already supplied the logical subtext that indicates why that has to be the case. No one would call this guy into the story to supply what could easily be obtained anyway, with no effort. everyone knows this, That's like saying you can't produces quote from brown the catholic priest where he says he's a Christian,

Joe could only get Jesus burred in a private tomb not a mass grave because his mission was to save the day from profanation thorough bad burial,

I know thi is what Brown says like I know my name,this section changed my whole way of thinking about the resurrection I know what it says,


Joe Hinman said…
we are spinning our wheels I am closing the thread, Merry Christmas PX

Popular posts from this blog

Where did Jesus say "It is better to give than receive?"

More evidence for the Historical Truth of David and Goliath

Martin Luther King, Jr., Jesus, Jonah and U2’s Pride in the Name of Love

On the Significance of Simon of Cyrene, Father of Alexander and Rufus

How Many Children in Bethlehem Did Herod Kill?

A Simple Illustration of the Trinity

Bread and Butter apologetics

Do God's Omniscience and Omnipotence Contradict?

The Meaning of the Manger

The Genre of the Gospel of John (Part 1)